Ahmadinejad Wants To Visit Ground Zero

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,171
Location
Edge's beanie closet
NY Sun

By SARAH GARLAND
Staff Reporter of the Sun
September 19, 2007 updated 3:41 pm EDT

In a move that has stunned New York, the Bloomberg administration is in discussions to escort the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to ground zero during his visit to New York next week, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said today.

The Iranian mission to the U.N. made the request to the New York City Police Department and the Secret Service, which will jointly oversee security during the leader's two-day visit. Mr. Ahmadinejad is scheduled to arrive September 24 to speak to the U.N. General Assembly as the Security Council decides whether to increase sanctions against his country for its uranium enrichment program.

Mr. Kelly said the NYPD and Secret Service were in discussions with the Iranian Mission about the logistics for the possible visit, and whether it will take place at all. He said that for safety reasons related to ongoing construction at ground zero Mr. Ahmadinejad would not be allowed to descend into the pit.

"There has been some interest expressed in his visiting the area," Mr. Kelly said. "It's something that we are prepared to handle if in fact it does happen."

Mr. Kelly said Mr. Ahmadinejad had not indicated why he wants to visit the site of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Several presidential candidates quickly condemned the proposed visit.

"It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world's top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero," a spokeswoman for Senator Thompson, Karen Hanretty, said. "Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day."

A Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, called the plan "shockingly audacious."

"It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."

A major American Jewish leader, Malcolm Hoenlein, said a visit by Mr. Ahmadinejad "would violate the sanctity of the sacred place and the memory of those who perished there."

Mr. Hoenlein, the vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is a leading figure in organizing a protest against the Iranian leader Monday in front of the U.N.

He told The New York Sun that the Iranian president should be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the U.N. and should not be permitted to travel the full extent of the 25-mile radius that is normally allowed for foreign dignitaries attending meetings at the world body.

Iran has been called the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism" by the U.S. State Department.
 
Oh, so Malcolm Hoenlein is a "major American Jewish leader" now? :lol: Well, at least I've heard of him, though most American Jews wouldn't have; he's the chairman of a small but influential (and very conservative) Israel policy lobbying group (the CoP).

At any rate, the NYPD has since clarified that Commissioner Kelly misspoke and in fact Ahmadinejad's proposed visit had already been nixed.
 
Last edited:
So they said no for security and safety reasons. You must be able to lay a wreath there without going into the pit, he could have done that. I think it's still an interesting hypothetical as to whether or not he should be allowed to do so, security and safety aside.
 
If I recall Iran condemned the 911 attacks
and
Iran has absolutely no connection to 911..
there are no Iranians at ground zero.


but, there are a few Saudis.

bush-abdullah-8.jpg
bush_holding_hands.jpg



Has this guy had his visit, yet?
 
While I welcome any effort for dialogue and understanding, it would be totally hypocritical to allow the president of Iran to visit ground zero while Iran remains the chief sponsor of terror in the world and a great supporter of Osama Bin Laden - who CAUSED the creation of ground zero in the first place.

If he really wants to pay his respects to the innocent victims, then he should wake up, stop funding terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, stop threatening Israel with annihaliation (which is utterly laughable and will NEVER happen) and realize that he's causing nothing but harm to his people by using the wealth of his country to fund terrorists and instead of providing for them.

I agree that letting him go there would be like letting Hitler visit Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

Let him pay his respects by changing his militant attitude and becoming a man of peace.
 
I'm curious why he wants to visit the site.

As for him/Iran being the "chief sponsor of terror" as I recall deep is correct; Iran has never been linked to 9/11 so I'm not quite sure I see the relevance.

And as for Hoenlein's suggestion that his movements should be restricted to less than the 25 mile radius...if we're monitoring diplomats' activities in NYC I'd start with the various criminals who drive drunk and kill people, and who commit rape and other violent crimes, and hide behind their diplomatic immunity.
 
I don't have any problem with him visiting the site. If he'd like to lay a wreath, he is welcome to as far as I'm concerned.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
i'd be pissed off if he went to ground zero... i'd be highly offended if he went down there and made a mockery of the sacred ground. but, alas, this is america. if that's what he wants to do while he's here, he should be allowed to do so.

I wonder if that's his plan though. I'm honestly curious why he wants to go, and I guess only he knows.

But I agree, he should be allowed to go, as much as we might not want him there.
 
I've got mixed feelings on this one.

Part of me thinks it would be a good thing for him to visit....maybe open his eyes a little more and maybe something would start brewing in him to change his country's standards---whatever they may be as of today. Maybe he's trying to show a sign of respect in a way.

The other part of thinks he's got absolutely no business being there and I can see how it could possibly be a bit of a slap in the face for Americans. Like he's mocking us in a way, or as if he's going to scope out the place to see with his own eyes the site of the terrorism was.

Like I said, I'm torn. I usually think the best of people and get proven wrong mroe times than I'm right. Which makes me remind myself that there are horrible, evil, and back handed people out there and any one can lie, steal, cheat, or kill.

Another question raised in my head....why are we even allowing or inviting him in to the country---if his country has been supporting troops with weapons, etc. to use against American troops?
 
He's going to the UN General Assembly meeting. I am torn too- it does certainly seem fundamentally wrong, and my main concern would be the feelings of the families and loved ones of those killed. I am suspicious of the guy and his motives, and obviously Iran's involvement with terrorism is a huge issue.
 
Kiki said:

Another question raised in my head....why are we even allowing or inviting him in to the country---if his country has been supporting troops with weapons, etc. to use against American troops?

I think I can answer that.

He's coming for the convening of the UN general assembly and the UN building is ex-territorial property. Therefore, he's allowed a visa to attend the assembly but it's at the U.S. government discretion whether to allow him into the country proper.

At least that's what I assume - please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
AchtungBono said:


I think I can answer that.

He's coming for the convening of the UN general assembly and the UN building is ex-territorial property. Therefore, he's allowed a visa to attend the assembly but it's at the U.S. government discretion whether to allow him into the country proper.

At least that's what I assume - please correct me if I'm wrong.

hmmm......well....to be safe wouldn't you...NOT allow him in the the country proper? I doubt they'd let our President in to their country proper......then again if our President tried to do something they'd probably have no problem beheading him on the spot. Not to say that the secret service wouldn't take as many reactions as that either......ugh! anyone following what I'm meaning?!

:lol:
 
(New York - WABC, September 19, 2007) - Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad requested to visit Ground Zero during an upcoming trip to New York. That request was rejected Wednesday. But a source tells Eyewitness News that the decision may not stop him.

A law enforcement source says the Iranian mission to the United Nations has informed the Secret Service that the Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero Monday at 10 a.m.
The source says regardless of the NYPD's rejection of the request for a Ground Zero tour, Iran's president and his entourage will be accompanied by a Secret Service protective detail, a detail provided to all heads of state when they visit the United States.
 
Yeah, I mean, they can't really stop him from going I suppose. Though that security detail might be necessary...I can picture someone trying to pick him off.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
(New York - WABC, September 19, 2007) - Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad requested to visit Ground Zero during an upcoming trip to New York. That request was rejected Wednesday. But a source tells Eyewitness News that the decision may not stop him.

A law enforcement source says the Iranian mission to the United Nations has informed the Secret Service that the Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero Monday at 10 a.m.
The source says regardless of the NYPD's rejection of the request for a Ground Zero tour, Iran's president and his entourage will be accompanied by a Secret Service protective detail, a detail provided to all heads of state when they visit the United States.


yeah that was my other thought....what if some idiot----an American I mean, acts out against him and does something? Just by having secret service or police escourts or both doesnt really ensure that some psycho's not going to still try something whether it be up close or from far away....and who's to say they wouldnt hurt him or worse?

I think if I were him I'd realize for my own safety and for respect for the American people---one way or another---I would stay away.
 
I think he should be able to. He should apologize for denying the Holocaust, but his aspirations are nothing like Al Qaeda's. As usual, NYC politicians don't like Muslims if they stand up for themselves. Giuliani kicked Arafat at a concert in NYC, while he has no problem with mass murdering Israeli heads of state. So typical of New York. They mistake not being anti-semitic with supporting Israel unwaveringly, no matter what cruel deeds it commits. I wish the popular phrase referring to the terrible genocide of Europe's Jewry by Christians, "Never again!" would be applied to other peoples. Just because attrocities don't happen to Jews or if Jews are committing them makes those attrocities no less deplorable and immoral.
 
Muldfeld said:
I think he should be able to. He should apologize for denying the Holocaust, but his aspirations are nothing like Al Qaeda's.

Muldfeld, he said Israel should be wiped off the map.
 
Muldfeld said:
I think he should be able to. He should apologize for denying the Holocaust, but his aspirations are nothing like Al Qaeda's. As usual, NYC politicians don't like Muslims if they stand up for themselves. Giuliani kicked Arafat at a concert in NYC, while he has no problem with mass murdering Israeli heads of state. So typical of New York. They mistake not being anti-semitic with supporting Israel unwaveringly, no matter what cruel deeds it commits. I wish the popular phrase referring to the terrible genocide of Europe's Jewry by Christians, "Never again!" would be applied to other peoples. Just because attrocities don't happen to Jews or if Jews are committing them makes those attrocities no less deplorable and immoral.



you keep insisting you're not anti-semetic, and i agree that objecting to some of Israel's tactics shouldn't get one labled as such, but throwing out phrases such as "so typical of New York" really doesn't do much to counter the perception that you aren't just anti-Israeli, you are also anti-semetic (and saying that the Holocaust was A Bad Thing doesn't cover your ass).

most people have quite nuanced positions on this topic, and the refusal to view suicide bombing as a legitimate means of "standing up for [your]self" isn't anti-Palestinian either.

my only question is why this particular topic consumes so much of the global landscape. there are many, many more groups who live under far more repressive conditions than the Palestinians (not that anyone should be repressed, but group suffering is hardly known only to Palestinians), and yet none of them get 1/10th the attention that this little strip of desert gets.
 
I don't like the man, but he should be able to do this, if innocent Iranians were killed in the attacks, then there's no reason why the Americans should get so high and mighty - after all, I'm sure he just wants to make a nice little tribute.

The US shouldn't offend Iran, even though many Iranians aren't particularly fond of their leader - but I think this might show a little of his better side.
 
He will talk about it on 60 Minutes Sunday. He wants to go there to "air his views about the root causes". Uh, I don't think so-not appropriate. For me it's about 90 % of me that says no, 10 % holds out hope for pure motives and genuine compassion and humanity. If he just wanted to pay respects he wouldn't say anything about root causes-save that for the UN.

(CBS) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not press his plan -- just denied by New York City police for security reasons -- to visit ground zero in New York City, he tells 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley in an exclusive interview conducted Thursday in Iran.

The Iranian leader says he's skeptical that most Americans view his visit there as insulting as his intention was only to show respect. The interview will be broadcast Sunday, Sept. 23, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Asked if he intends to press his request to visit the World Trade Center site, Ahmadinejad tells Pelley, "Well, it was included in my program. If we have the time and the conditions are conducive, I will try to do that."

"But the New York Police Department and others do not appear to want you there. Do you intend to go there anyway?" Pelley asks.

"Well, over there, local officials need to make the necessary coordinations. If they can't do that, I won't insist," the president replies.

"Sir, what were you thinking? The World Trade Center site is the most sensitive place in the American heart, and you must have known that visiting there would be insulting to many, many Americans," Pelley says.

"Why should it be insulting?" Ahmadinejad asks.

"Well, sir, you're the head of government of an Islamist state that the United States government says is a major exporter of terrorism around the world," Pelley says.

"Well, I wouldn't say that what American government says is is the prerequisite here. Something happened there which led to other events. Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens obviously. We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations," Ahmadinejad replies. "Usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents. I think that when I do that, I will be paying, as I said earlier, my respect to the American nation."

"But the American people, sir, believe that your country is a terrorist nation, exporting terrorism in the world," Pelley says. "You must have known that visiting the World Trade Center site would infuriate many Americans."

"Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?" Ahmadinejad says. "You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there."
 
I agree that letting him go there would be like letting Hitler visit Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

Uhm, I don't see the Iranian president quite in the same league as a person who exterminated 6 million jews. He had nothing to do with September 11th, he should be free to go and have a look.

The thing is here - yes he is an enabler of terrorism, but then so is America. No ones hands are clean, and if George Bush can visit Iraq, where he has had a lot more to do with the bloodshed and horror thats gone on in that country, then the Iranian president can do what ever he damn well pleases. If he wants to go a lay a wreath or pay his respects, why stop him? He can only do it if he panders to america wishes, without any concession of their own?

I don't know, it just seems like it could be a move in the right direction, have americans who know shit about anything seeing a muslim leader paying his respects at ground zero - perhaps open up some dialogue instead of screeching about terrorism and some wacko taking pot shots at him in the name of national american pride.
:shrug:
 
He knows whats going on, finger on the pulse of the zionist betrayal
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: We declare that since our [nuclear] project is for peaceful purposes, we are prepared to provide – under IAEA supervision – technical and engineering services to the other IAEA members. We can guide them, so that other too can use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
[...]
Journalist: What would you say to people who are concerned that a possible attack [against Iran] would be very bad? Thank you.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: In my opinion, the premise of this analysis is wrong. In Iran, there are hardly any such people. Even if there are any such people, they are so few that they drown in the sea of Iranian people. If you want to see how happy the Iranians are, take a look at Iran’s streets, places of entertainment, and centers of tourism. The Iranian people is not worried about such things at all. The reason is clear: The Iranian people relies upon its faith, its unity, its national capabilities, and its culture, and therefore, it is invincible.
[...]
I state categorically that there is no chance that America will make such a decision, and that even if it does, it will be incapable of carrying it out. The reasons are so clear that they don’t need to be mentioned.
[...]
Journalist: You said that Iran does not anticipate a military attack, but Mr. Sarkozy, the president of France, indicated yesterday that if Iran continues its nuclear project, there is a possibility of a military attack. What do you think about this?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: According to our assessment, because he is new, he is trying to position himself in the world, but he hasn’t yet tested the waters. In other words, he may not be aware of the significance of what he said. Besides, in our opinion, he said this for domestic consumption. Politically, this is too trivial for us to even think about.
[....]
A government functions like a football team. It is team work. The president is the coach of the team. No player who enters the field can say he must remain there the entire 90 minutes. The coach examines the game, and changes the formation. This is because the team has to win. Pay attention. The group has to achieve several targets. The coach sees this, and at that moment, he can change the formation and even the tactics, but the goal and the path remain the same. He may change the tactics and the formation, and may take out some of the players from the field, and bring on new ones instead.
[...]
In principle, the Zionists lack any religion. They are lying when they say that they are Jews. They have no religion. They are against religion, because religion means friendship, brotherhood, peace, and justice. Religion means to respect the divine prophets. Note this. Religion means to respect others. It means friendship between peoples. Note that wherever the Zionists are, there is war, and wherever there is war, they are the ones behind it. As a matter of fact, if you examine American society, you will see that they oppress the Americans. They oppress the Europeans, even though they are a minority. They infiltrated in an organized manner... No more than 10,000 of them are part of the organization, and the rest just follow them. But they have become a powerful underground political party, which has the money and the media at its disposal. They do not want friendship and peace between peoples. They do not want there to be friendship between the Swedish government and other countries. This way they get rid of their complexes about the Prophet of Islam and all other prophets. As you know, an affront to the Prophet of Islam means an affront to all the divine prophets, because the Prophet of Islam is the Seal of the Prophets.

[...]
Therefore, because the Zionists have no religion, I strongly suspect that they are behind [the Swedish cartoon], and that they want to embarrass the Europeans, and make the European governments face a challenge. They want to instigate a war, because war is the essence of their existence. If the world is calm, the people of Europe the Germans... If the world is calm, they will eradicate the Zionists. I’m convinced of this. Do you know how many messages I get from Germans every day? They have an aversion to the Zionists. The Zionists humiliated the German people very much. But the Zionists are in control. The moment the world is calm and people can express their views, you will see that they will drive them out of Europe. The people of Europe themselves will drive them out. The [Zionists] do not want such a thing to happen, and that’s why they instigate new turmoil every day.

[...]
When Mr. Putin met me in Bishkek, he told me that they would complete the reactor in Bushehr as planned. In opinion, Mr. Putin and the Russian government are standing by these statements, and they will complete the reactor. We are not worried about this.
link

Progressive minded leader like that, I am sure his message will be heard.
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
you keep insisting you're not anti-semetic, and i agree that objecting to some of Israel's tactics shouldn't get one labled as such, but throwing out phrases such as "so typical of New York"

Mudfeld's statement:- "As usual, NYC politicians don't like Muslims if they stand up for themselves. Giuliani kicked Arafat at a concert in NYC, while he has no problem with mass murdering Israeli heads of state. So typical of New York" was a bit of an overgeneralisation, IMO. But I wouldn't hugely disagree with its general thrust.

I would venture that the three most well known New York politicians at the moment are Hilary Clinton, Rudi Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg - each one of them pretty strongly pro-Zionist. One is current Mayor, another a former Mayor and one is an elected Senator and married to a former President. Not uninfluentual people, it's fair to say. And all three are potential Presidential candidates.

Irvine511 said:
really doesn't do much to counter the perception that you aren't just anti-Israeli, you are also anti-semetic

I think that's an unfair thing to say.

Your comment seems to assume that there are FYM'ers who already have a perception of Mudfeld as not "just anti-Israeli" but "also anti-semetic".

Whose perception, precisely, are we talking about here? On the basis of what Mudfeld has said in this thread, I don't have any such perception - do you? If you do, can you explain why?

Irvine511 said:
(and saying that the Holocaust was A Bad Thing doesn't cover your ass).


From Mudfeld's post:- " I wish the popular phrase referring to the terrible genocide of Europe's Jewry by Christians, "Never again!" would be applied to other peoples."

It seems to me that that's a fairly strong statement of expression of disgust for the war crimes committed by the Nazis, and it's a long way from your implication that Mudfeld only stated that the Holocaust was "A Bad Thing" to "cover his ass".

Irvine511 said:
most people have quite nuanced positions on this topic, and the refusal to view suicide bombing as a legitimate means of "standing up for [your]self" isn't anti-Palestinian either.

Agreed. Imams brainwashing teenagers and young adults into becoming suicide bombers is thoroughly revolting.

Irvine511 said:
there are many, many more groups who live under far more repressive conditions than the Palestinians (not that anyone should be repressed, but group suffering is hardly known only to Palestinians), and yet none of them get 1/10th the attention that this little strip of desert gets.

Can you give some examples? And is anyone seriously claiming that group suffering is known only to Palestinians?
 
Back
Top Bottom